Faecal matter on apron piece

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Thanks. I could live with all that.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I think what can be forgotten when studying these cases is that you need to have a story that makes sense to go along with the existing physical evidence. The contemporary police themselves suggested a pre-arranged meeting, the fact that she was incarcerated and unable to predict when she would be released could be addressed with a story like I suggested.

I respectfully submit DrHopper that Catharine Eddowes wounds may seem similar in nature but the wounds and the murder overall was unlike the previous victims in many important ways. For one we have the new odd wounds without purpose on her upper thigh and pubic area , the new cut around the navel, the new facial wounds, the new colon section placed between the arm and body...and we have a cut and rip to acquire the apron section, brand spanking new.

The location is very important also. It is with the Eddowes murder that the police found justification for their belief the man lived in the East End. The apron section placed at Goulston suggested a departure route. That it was at the entrance of model dwellings that housed 90% + Jewish folks is significant also.

Cheers,
Mike R

[Tom_Wescott]

I think what can be forgotten when studying these cases is that you need to have a story that makes sense to go along with the existing physical evidence.

I for one will not argue that many here have forgotten the 'make sense' part of the stories they're selling.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. And I wasn't thinking of Trevor when I wrote that.

[DrHopper]

Hello Dr.

"Kate's wounds are exactly like all the others."

Indeed? You might have a go at the post mortem in each case. Quite a few differences. But, what is MOST striking, is the similarity between Polly and Annie.

Cheers.
LC

Of course there are differences in the detail, but looking through a macroscopic lens what we have is a person killing prostitutes and mutilating them in a gruesome manner. This is the one defining characteristic of the JTR killings, and it allows them to be lumped together simply because they do stand out against the background noise of murder without the mutilation. Certainly, people are being stabbed, but no one else is doing the mutilating. I think it is folly to look at the minor differences in the shape, location, even purpose, of the mutilation and declare that they are from a different hand or enacted by different drivers.
That's not to say that the differences cannot provide clues and insight, just that they are not, in my opinion, evidence of different people/motives at work

[DrHopper]

I respectfully submit DrHopper that Catharine Eddowes wounds may seem similar in nature but the wounds and the murder overall was unlike the previous victims in many important ways. For one we have the new odd wounds without purpose on her upper thigh and pubic area , the new cut around the navel, the new facial wounds, the new colon section placed between the arm and body...and we have a cut and rip to acquire the apron section, brand spanking new.

The location is very important also. It is with the Eddowes murder that the police found justification for their belief the man lived in the East End. The apron section placed at Goulston suggested a departure route. That it was at the entrance of model dwellings that housed 90% + Jewish folks is significant also.

Cheers,
Mike R

I agree to a point. But this is what I mean about not using a macroscopic lens. JTR has a minute or two at most to kill and mutilate and get the hell out of there. He is not going to be delicately placing cuts in places with meaning. Pull back from looking at the placement of these cuts (navel, etc) and look at the greater picture - he is ripping open women and scattering bits and taking others. That is the point, that is the signature - the opening of women. No one else is doing that, only JTR. Other people are murdering women, as well as men and children, but only JTR rips - that is what defines this type of 'pottery'!
Of course, this is my opinion and not meant as 'gospel', but I don't think anything is to be gained by using such focused microscopic study of the differences between the victims - Jack isn't worried about the placement of his cut on the thigh, he may be targeting the thigh, but is not concerned about where the cut ends up, just the brutal taking apart of women. A process he achieved perfectly with MJK, simply because he had the time and the place, but which was what he wanted to do to all the women.

Now place, that is perhaps a little different, I'll concede to a point. However, I'm not a believer in either the GSG (coincidence and random scrawl) or the placement of the apron piece (convenient alleyway, not measured or pointed placement). Again, just my opinion.

[lynn cates]

narrative

Hello Mike, Tom. Agreed.

And the most important part of such a "narrative" is that it be consistent.

Whether it is right or wrong requires historical evidence to confirm/disconfirm the items in the narrative.

Cheers.
LC

[John Wheat]

Dr Hopper makes some good points about the mutilations and I too believe that the GSG is a coincidence and that the placement of the apron piece was not placed deliberately.

[lynn cates]

lens polishing

Hello Dr. Thanks.

"[L]ooking through a macroscopic lens what we have is a person killing prostitutes and mutilating them in a gruesome manner."

Well, what we have is SOME prostitutes being killed and mutilated (Polly and Annie); and, another, SAID to be a prostitute (Kate). As long as one makes this assumption, one will likely draw the same conclusion.

"This is the one defining characteristic of the JTR killings, and it allows them to be lumped together simply because they do stand out against the background noise of murder without the mutilation."

IF this were in fact a characteristic of the 3 murders, then it may well be defining. (But see above.)

"Certainly, people are being stabbed, but no one else is doing the mutilating."

Not sure what you mean. Surely there were at least 2 other mutilation killings in England in 1888 (Beetmore and a young boy). And no one attributes them to the same killer.

"I think it is folly to look at the minor differences in the shape, location, even purpose, of the mutilation and declare that they are from a different hand or enacted by different drivers."

I understand and respect that. But from my perspective, it is folly not to.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pottery

Hello (again) Dr. Thanks.

"That is the point, that is the signature - the opening of women."

And yet, other women were opened but their demise is not laid to "JTR."

Regarding your pottery metaphor, consider this. A colleague (better: an intern) comes to you with two shards purportedly found by him. One is about 2 inches long and an inch wide. It evinces the typical meander design of a krater from the Greek "Orientalising" era. Then he presents a second one, this time, a large fragment of a Hittite deity (like the one found at Catal Huyuk).

Q: Do you lump them together?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Surely there were at least 2 other mutilation killings in England in 1888 (Beetmore and a young boy). And no one attributes them to the same killer.

They could not be any more different.

Do you think these two were done by the Whitechapel Murderer?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

And yet, other women were opened but their demise is not laid to "JTR."

Which other women, and whose opinion of the possible culprit do you refer to, please ?

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"They could not be any more different."

Oh, they could be more different. At least, the Met sent some one (I believe Dr. Phillips) scurrying to check the cadaver. The young boy? The report had him being laid open like Annie and Kate.

"Do you think these two were done by the Whitechapel Murderer?"

Certainly not--anymore than Kate was.

"Which other women, and whose opinion of the possible culprit do you refer to, please?"

1. Jane Beetmore.

2. Dr. Phillips, if I recall properly.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

The young boy? The report had him being laid open like Annie and Kate.

Were Annie and Kate similarly opened up?

[QUOTE ]
Certainly not--anymore than Kate was.[/QUOTE]

PROPOGANDA ALERT !!!

"Which other women, and whose opinion of the possible culprit do you refer to, please?"
1. Jane Beetmore.
2. Dr. Phillips, if I recall properly.

That`ll be woman, not women, Lynn, and I don`t think anyone seriously thought the Birtley murderer was the Whitechapel murderer, especially when the victims boyfriend (the last person seen with the victim) does a runner.

[lynn cates]

not only . . . but also . . .

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Were Annie and Kate similarly opened up?"

In the WAY they were opened up? No.

In THAT they were opened up? (My meaning.) Yes. (Sorry for not being precise.)

"Certainly not--anymore than Kate was."

"PROPOGANDA ALERT !!!"

A comparison. (And it's propaganda--heh-heh.)

"That`ll be woman, not women, Lynn, . . . "

Very well. Mea culpa.

" . . . and I don`t think anyone seriously thought the Birtley murderer was the Whitechapel murderer . . . "

Initially or upon consideration?

Similarly, does anyone think there was a JTR?

Initially, or upon consideration? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[DrHopper]

Hi Lynn

"[L]ooking through a macroscopic lens what we have is a person killing prostitutes and mutilating them in a gruesome manner."

Well, what we have is SOME prostitutes being killed and mutilated (Polly and Annie); and, another, SAID to be a prostitute (Kate). As long as one makes this assumption, one will likely draw the same conclusion.

Ok, fair enough. You are right that the traditional view is that they were all prostitutes, and that there may be some debate as to whether they were or not. I think a lot (most?) women in their situuation would have dabbled in prostitution at some point or another - easy (relatively) money, etc. I personally don't think it matters too much if they were prostitutes or not, the end result is that they were the lowest of the low in terms of society - that is the crucial detail.

"This is the one defining characteristic of the JTR killings, and it allows them to be lumped together simply because they do stand out against the background noise of murder without the mutilation."

IF this were in fact a characteristic of the 3 murders, then it may well be defining. (But see above.)

Surely 4 of the C5 were mutilated to a lesser or greater extent. I tend to discount Stride because of a lack of mutilation (among other reasons).

"Certainly, people are being stabbed, but no one else is doing the mutilating."

Not sure what you mean. Surely there were at least 2 other mutilation killings in England in 1888 (Beetmore and a young boy). And no one attributes them to the same killer.

Ok, more specifically, within Whitechapel people are being stabbed, but there is very little mutilation going on in that area.

"I think it is folly to look at the minor differences in the shape, location, even purpose, of the mutilation and declare that they are from a different hand or enacted by different drivers."

I understand and respect that. But from my perspective, it is folly not to.

Cheers.
LC

Absolutely, and I should state here that I respect the work that you do, and have done, as well as anyone else's that looks at the smaller points. We differ on tactics and meaning, that is all!

Cheers,
DrH

[lynn cates]

fine points

Hello Dr. Thanks for the kind words.

"Ok, fair enough. You are right that the traditional view is that they were all prostitutes, and that there may be some debate as to whether they were or not."

Quite.

"I think a lot (most?) women in their situation would have dabbled in prostitution at some point or another - easy (relatively) money, etc."

Possibly. But I cannot speak with authority here.

"I personally don't think it matters too much if they were prostitutes or not, the end result is that they were the lowest of the low in terms of society - that is the crucial detail."

Happy with this. I think it proper to assume they were not wealthy. (heh-heh)

"Surely 4 of the C5 were mutilated to a lesser or greater extent."

Indeed.

"I tend to discount Stride because of a lack of mutilation (among other reasons)."

Very well. No argument.

"Ok, more specifically, within Whitechapel people are being stabbed, but there is very little mutilation going on in that area."

Alright.

"Absolutely, and I should state here that I respect the work that you do, and have done, as well as anyone else's that looks at the smaller points. We differ on tactics and meaning, that is all!"

And that's fair enough. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC